(16-04-2012 01:27 PM)whateverist Wrote: Oh, I see he isn't actually interested in conversing about the content of his post. He is sort of like a kid reaching a stick between the slats of a fence in order to irritate the dogs (us) on the other side. Then he just runs away squeeling with laughter. My bad.

First off, this is not a chat room. I don’t have to post and stay on my computer and answer each reply as it comes up. Believe it or not I do work and sleep as well. And sometimes I even take a break from the computer. So, please don’t accuse me of hitting and running. Second, below are the only posts worth responding to in all the four pages of responses generated in less than 24 hours. So, why should I stay glued to respond? Most of the posts I won’t respond to anyway.
Having said that…

(16-04-2012 03:43 AM)houseofcantor Wrote: Let me get this straight. You put faith in Behe's crack-pottery to show you the necessity of god-driven evolution - and we're the insane ones?
How quaint. Lost in the holodeck of your very own Enterprise.

But you haven’t even read his book, have you? He talks at length about the failure of malaria to evolve into a more complex organism. But that doesn’t matter. He fully supports evolution; he simply shows that the odds of chaotic chance producing the mutations necessary for an organism to survive are so miniscule there simply isn’t enough time in the universe so far to account for it—statistically speaking. Having a math background, I kind of know what he means.

I’m not arguing against evolution. I firmly believe in mutation, natural selection and common descent. But it can’t happen without a designing input.

(16-04-2012 03:50 AM)robotworld Wrote: The last time I checked, natural selection is the very opposite of chance.

Then you must believe in God. Besides, the chance is in the mutation, not in natural selection.

(16-04-2012 10:11 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote: God, when will this troll be banned. It's very obvious he's a troll from all his is ignorant, outlandish threads.

Translated: If we don’t ban him, he’s going to make us all look like fools for being atheist!

(16-04-2012 01:11 PM)whateverist Wrote: I can't believe you consider the matter settled because you've found one book where there is someone bat-shit crazy enough to actually agree with you. Believe it or not there are actually a couple books out there which disagree with you that are written by real science-doing people rather than bible-apologists. When it comes to science, what seems prima facie obvious to bible-apologists actually carries very little weight with scientists .. approaching zero in fact.

You don’t even know what you’re talking about. I’m not going to argue Behe’s credentials with you. You look them up. And I’m not going to argue with someone who hasn’t even read the book.

Quote:But if you like prima facie arguments, I've got one for you. The reason that creationism isn't really science is that it isn't about natural causes. If it turns out that you're right and in fact the world and everything in it was just blinked into existence by your favorite genie .. guess what. Then there could be no science explanation for creation. We would instead have a theological explanation. I assume you agree that science can't hope to explain just how God blinks stuff into existence, right? Then creationism can't be about science.

You’re all adamant, like you just figured that out. And for the record, there is no scientific explanation for creation. None. Nothing. So, I guess that means, by your reasoning, that God exists.

Quote:What you and your ilk should be arguing is that science cannot explain the mysterious ways in which God works. Do you mind if we go ahead trying to understand the universe as if it had natural causes?

Apparently, you can do whatever you want. But if you think natural selection can give us the world we have with chaotic mutation, then you simply don’t understand the statistical math. You just don’t get it.

Now I get that you don’t want God to exist, so I understand that you have to desperately make up any BS you can in order to rule out God, but in the end you won’t be able to do it. Cosmology won’t discover how the universe came to exist. Abiogenesis will not discover how life began. And neurology will never explain consciousness, because you’re right, those things don’t have “natural” explanations.

(16-04-2012 01:19 PM)lucradis Wrote: If we made that thread where would we put it? We could add a link to the rules or a big banner on the intros section hahah.

Changing the rules again, Lucradis? Did I bring up yet another topic your atheists just can’t handle?

Quote:My brain looks at all there is to see. The trees, the sun, the vastness of space, and it can't fathom how or why. So my brain goes step by step. First I learn to understand the how and when that happens I start to question why. Deep down inside of me I know that I will never find the ultimate answers to the ultimate questions, hell I'm even pretty sure there is NO ultimate question, period...

Then may I suggest you stay out of the conversation? I mean, if you have nothing to add…

Quote:But to keep myself functioning my brain creates reasons to continue. Love, entertainment, the sense of accomplishment, whatever it may be there is always a reason for me to continue.

What a sad existence.

Quote:Your brain starts the same, but starts filling in gaps with god. It can't accept gaps, it can't accept the unknown or unknowable. Or it breaks. So every time you encounter something that you can't immediately answer or something that doesn't have an easy answer your brain takes control and steer you to god. The big problem with your form of insanity is that you have so much invested in it. So if something comes along with the obvious answer but something associated with god has already answered that question for you your brain takes over again and starts firing cannon balls at the new answer.

What fucking new answer, Lucardis? I believe in evolution. I’ll bet I believe in it even more than you. I’m telling you that the observations of nature and the understanding of chance and probability make even the simplest evolutionary changes based on chaotic mutation unlikely in the length of time the universe, much less the world, has existed. I’m saying, as Behe has written about, that we have to start looking at the obvious intent that has driven the evolution of life on our planet. And I don’t care if biology as we know it can’t provide the answers. If it can’t, then I’ll look to anything that will. Hell, is there a course in bio-astrology? I’ll look there. The difference between you and me is that you won’t look there. You have to have a universe with no God in it.

The reason I say you’re crazy is because you’re embracing evolution without understanding that it’s an argument for the existence of God.

Quote:If somehow it was proven to you that there was literally no point to existence and that everything you did had zero meaning, there was no afterlife, there was no god, when you die that's it. I think you'd break into a thousand tiny little insane gibbering pieces. You'd either be the guy who stands out in the street with a jesus is lord sandwich board shouting about the end times or you'd kill yourself.

I think it would be a little worse than that, but in general, yes, I think you’re right about that. I am not wired to live in a world that is God-less.

Ironically, in heaven God is even less apparent than He is in this life. But that’s another discussion.

Quote:Me I'd just kind of be like... whatever. I'm going to go love my family some more. Enjoy the sunshine and maybe have a nap. My functionality doesn't rely on having the answer.

Until it really began to sink in. Right now, atheist or not, you live with at least the possibility that God exists. If we knew that wasn’t the case, over time, that family would come to mean nothing more to you than the dirt on the ground. Eventually, you’d feel the same way about yourself, and I’ll bet you’d join me in a little trip to the Hale-Bopp comet.

In fact, if you were right. Ultimately, humanity would die off. If you don’t believe me then you simply don’t understand how human beings are wired.

(16-04-2012 01:35 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote: Question. How long do you think the universe has existed?

13.7 billion years.

Quote:Because if you're a YEC then I agree that it is impossible for us to have evolved this much in such a short time span.

There is no conceivable way that chance mutations would take us from a strand of abiogenesisly created RNA to a human being in 13.7 billion years. Assuming the earth is that old, and it’s probably only about 4.5 billion years old. These are not universally large numbers. What is a universally large number is the amount of years that a change in a species that would require even a two-step chance mutation would require in order for that to happen.

Quote:...because you clearly don't understand what evolution is in the first place.

Don’t even start that shit with me.

(16-04-2012 09:32 PM)Red Tornado Wrote: Darwin...
Why are you still kicking a dead horse? Its 2012 - pick somebody from this fucking year.

So evolution doesn't mean mutation, natural selection and common descent?

Quote:We know more than Darwin could ever dream about - you're probally right on some level - Darwin's idea of evolution is wrong on some points, however evolution which science knows today has been proven to be accurate and true.

Great. I believe in evolution. So who's kicking the dead horse? You, I think.

First of all apologies for assuming you were a hit and run artist with no investment in what you'd posted.

[I can't seem to figure out the way the quotes work on this forum so I've got to respond here to the quote below.] The reason I feel this is significant is that it shows what a farce the effort to insert creationism into science classrooms really is. I assume you would agree with me that science is of some use and worth funding and teaching. If so, do you agree that it is wrong-headed of Christians who push for including creationism (or whatever we're calling it lately) into the science curriculum.

I have no idea why you think this means I should think God exists. (For the record, I don't.) I'm interested in pursuing natural explanations as far as they take us. I don't find I need a religious explanation until such time as the scientific one is completely adequate. Appeals to unknowable magic are a piss poor substitute for those who truly desire to understand.

(16-04-2012 10:46 PM)Egor Wrote:

Quote:But
if you like prima facie arguments, I've got one for you. The reason
that creationism isn't really science is that it isn't about natural
causes. If it turns out that you're right and in fact the world and
everything in it was just blinked into existence by your favorite genie
.. guess what. Then there could be no science explanation for creation.
We would instead have a theological explanation. I assume you agree that
science can't hope to explain just how God blinks stuff into existence,
right? Then creationism can't be about science.

You’re
all adamant, like you just figured that out. And for the record, there
is no scientific explanation for creation. None. Nothing. So, I guess
that means, by your reasoning, that God exists.

(16-04-2012 10:46 PM)Egor Wrote:

Quote:What you and your ilk should be arguing is that science cannot explain the mysterious ways in which God works. Do you mind if we go ahead trying to understand the universe as if it had natural causes?

Apparently, you can do whatever you want. But if you think natural selection can give us the world we have with chaotic mutation, then you simply don’t understand the statistical math. You just don’t get it.

Now I get that you don’t want God to exist, so I understand that you have to desperately make up any BS you can in order to rule out God, but in the end you won’t be able to do it.

You forget that ruling God out means nothing to me. I'm still looking for a cogent reason to include God in the conversation at all. Saying that science can't already explain everything so God must have done it just means you aren't really interested in searching for natural causes to begin with.

How I feel about God existing isn't really relevant so far as I can tell. I actually think it could be totally charming if a real God did exist, though not the one told of in the bible of course. That thing is just a monster. But the God I believed in until I didn't would be someone we would all enjoy meeting. It just isn't going to happen.

Remember, saying that God made things the way they are for reasons only He knows isn't a proper explanation. It is more of a sorting activity. Somehow we are able to understand and therefore explain some things. Far from constituting an explanation, anything you attribute to God is something you simply cannot explain. In your case, apparently, it is something you will not even try to explain. Perhaps you are the one desperate to save a place for God?

(16-04-2012 10:46 PM)Egor Wrote: There is no conceivable way that chance mutations would take us from a strand of abiogenesisly created RNA to a human being in 13.7 billion years. Assuming the earth is that old, and it’s probably only about 4.5 billion years old. These are not universally large numbers. What is a universally large number is the amount of years that a change in a species that would require even a two-step chance mutation would require in order for that to happen.

Quote:...because you clearly don't understand what evolution is in the first place.

Don’t even start that shit with me.

I believe I have to. I struggle to see why you think billions of years is insufficient enough to develop basic functions (crude motion sensors later evolved to eyes, stubby appendages since the organism that can move will survive, skin or a similar exothermic layer since the most protected organism survives the best, etc). Human beings are not super complicated titans of the universe. They just possess basic components that have advanced over billions of years. I mean we technically evolve from a clump of cells into a human being over the span of 9 months, and you don't think billions of years is enough?

You aren't a YEC. so just tell me which stage of our evolution do you think would have taken more time?

From simple cells -> multicellular life = 2.8 billion years
From multicellular life -> deuterostomes = 442 million years
From deutorstomes -> vision = 18 million years
From vision -> tetrapod = 160 million years
From tetrapod -> mammal = 180 million years
From mammal -> primate = 135 million years

Now consider that we have observed things like the Peppered Moth evolve into a completely different appearance over the span of 200 years or Darwin's notorious Finch example. We can actually see evolution in such short spans that it can be measured.

Whenever someone starts using words like "chaotic" or "random chance," the red flags start popping up. It's like an atheist talking about his faith in atheism, you get the feeling the person is faking or doesn't understand the term he's representing. There is chance involved, but not like "being born with 3 eyes" chance mutations. More like "being born with blue eyes when both your parents have brown" chance. And if survival somehow favored blue over brown eyes, we would start evolving towards a blue eyed race.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."

Can you elaborate what does natural selection have to do with believing in a deity? I don't really get what you are trying to say

Yes, mutations can be random, which accounts for genetic variation. But for mutations to be used as an evolutionary mechanism, the mutations have to be biased. Mutation bias is significant when selection is weak. One example would be loss of pigments in cave-dwelling animals.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ

(16-04-2012 10:46 PM)Egor Wrote: Second, below are the only posts worth responding to in all the four pages of responses generated in less than 24 hours. So, why should I stay glued to respond? Most of the posts I won’t respond to anyway. Did I bring up yet another article you atheists just can't handle ?

No idiot. You do NOT know what he's talking about, and the reason you're not responding to the posts is because you can't. The fact is, Behe's argument has been totally refuted in the Kenneth Miller article in Nature, (Vol 447).

How about, just for once, you answer the question, specifically telling us why and how the Miller retutation is incorrect.

It's all geometry and chemistry to me. And I don't get why you're so stuck on "without god, there's no purpose." That's crazy talk. We live in a society of laws, these things get instilled from a young age and give us our ethical standards. It is those standards that give us a sense of purpose.

(17-04-2012 12:37 AM)whateverist Wrote: First of all apologies for assuming you were a hit and run artist with no investment in what you'd posted.

No problemo.

Quote:The reason I feel this is significant is that it shows what a farce the effort to insert creationism into science classrooms really is. I assume you would agree with me that science is of some use and worth funding and teaching. If so, do you agree that it is wrong-headed of Christians who push for including creationism (or whatever we're calling it lately) into the science curriculum.

I do. I don’t think ID belongs in the science classroom. I think it belongs in philosophy. I think science can take us so far in our understanding and then we have to go beyond, and I think that is the realm of philosophical reasoning.

Quote:I have no idea why you think this means I should think God exists. (For the record, I don't.) I'm interested in pursuing natural explanations as far as they take us. I don't find I need a religious explanation until such time as the scientific one is completely adequate. Appeals to unknowable magic are a piss poor substitute for those who truly desire to understand.

You mean like, say, the theory of dark energy or quantum consciousness or string theory. An appeal to God is not magical thinking. It is not magical thinking to look at the design inherent in the world and conclude that a conscious designer is behind it all.

Quote:You forget that ruling God out means nothing to me. I'm still looking for a cogent reason to include God in the conversation at all. Saying that science can't already explain everything so God must have done it just means you aren't really interested in searching for natural causes to begin with.

Natural causes to what? Every natural cause keeps implying another cause. We live in a contingent world. There has to be something that started the whole chain of contingency, or else we are left with magical thinking (e.g., there’s an infinite series of causes). It’s not a dodge to seek out God; it’s actually a way of trying to finish scientific investigation.

Quote:How I feel about God existing isn't really relevant so far as I can tell. I actually think it could be totally charming if a real God did exist, though not the one told of in the bible of course. That thing is just a monster. But the God I believed in until I didn't would be someone we would all enjoy meeting. It just isn't going to happen.

“The God I believed in until I didn’t.” So, if you were wrong about God, what makes you think you’re right about atheism? Maybe you just need to rethink God.

Jesus Christ in Haven! Egor posts one sentence, you spamers evolve that into 4 pages of ranting about Egor, then you accuse HIM of being a spamer? Are you niggas cereal? Fo' real? WTF? Haaalloooo!?

Egor, just ignore then. What I find great are the little things these poor bastards will never see. For example I saw that you have started to accept evolution, so that means you probably do not believe in Young Earth anymore? If that is the fact, that is great news, you are making progress and learning new things and I applaud you on that. Bravo my good sir, bravo. You are a proof of evolution, you are evolving on this forum as we speak.

I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.-Hunter S. Thompson